Over half of all new cars sold in the U.S. by 2030 are expected to be electric vehicles. That could put a major strain on our nation’s electric grid, an aging system built for a world that runs on fossil fuels.
Domestic electricity demand in 2022 is expected to increase up to 18% by 2030 and 38% by 2035, according to an analysis by the Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation and Analysis Toolkit, or REPEAT, an energy policy project out of Princeton University. That’s a big change over the roughly 5% increase we saw in the past decade.
“So we’ve got a lot of power demand coming to this country when we really didn’t have any for the last, like, 25 years,” said Rob Gramlich, founder and president of Grid Strategies, a transmission policy group.
While many parts of the economy are moving away from fossil fuels toward electrification — think household appliances such as stoves, and space heating for homes and offices — the transportation sector is driving the increase. Light-duty vehicles, a segment that excludes large trucks and aviation, are projected to use up to 3,360% more electricity by 2035 than they do today, according to Princeton’s data.
But electrification is only an effective decarbonization solution if it’s paired with a major buildout of renewable energy. “So we have both supply-side and demand-side drivers of big grid needs,” Gramlich said.
That means we need major changes to the grid: more high-voltage transmission lines to transport electricity from rural wind and solar power plants to demand centers; smaller distribution lines and transformers for last-mile electricity delivery; and hardware such as inverters that allow customers with home batteries, EVs and solar panels to feed excess energy back into the grid.
Charging electric vehicles is quite electricity intensive. While a direct comparison with appliances depends on many variables, an owner of a new Tesla Model 3 who drives the national average of around 14,000 miles per year would use about the same amount of electricity charging their vehicle at home as they would on their electric water heater over the course of a year, and about 10 times more electricity than it would take to power a new, energy-efficient refrigerator. Larger electric vehicles such as the Ford F-150 Lightning would generally use more electricity than a central AC unit in a large home.
Lydia Krefta, director of clean energy transportation at PG&E, said the utility currently has about 470,000 electric vehicles connected to the grid in its service territory of Northern and Central California and is aiming for 3 million by 2030.
Given that PG&E’s territory covers about 1 in 7 electric vehicles in the U.S., how it handles the EV transition could serve as a model for the nation. It’s no easy task. The utility is tied to a four-year funding cycle for grid infrastructure upgrades, and its last funding request was in 2021. Now that funding will definitely fall short of what’s needed, Krefta said.
Workers for Source Power Services, contracted by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), repair a power transformer in Healdsburg, California, on Thursday, Oct. 31, 2019.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
“A lot of the analysis that went into that request came from, like, 2019 or 2020 forecasts, in particular some of those older EV forecasts that didn’t anticipate some of the growth that we believe we’re more likely to see now,” Krefta said. This situation has PG&E applying for numerous state and federal grants that could help it meet its electrification targets.
“I think right now people have an overly simplistic view of what electrification of transportation means,” said Kevala CEO Aram Shumavon. “If done right, it will be phenomenal; if mismanaged, there are going to be a lot of upset people, and that is a real risk. That’s a risk for regulators. That’s a risk for politicians, and that’s a risk for utilities.”
Shumavon said that if grid infrastructure doesn’t keep up with the EV boom, drivers can expect charging difficulties such as long queues or only being able to charge at certain times and places. An overly strained grid will also be more vulnerable to extreme weather events and prone to blackouts, which California experienced in 2020.
The most straightforward way to meet growing electricity demand is to bring more energy sources online, preferably green ones. But though it’s easy to site coal and natural gas plants close to population centers, the best solar and wind resources are usually more rural.
But Gramlich said that while we’re constantly spending money replacing and upgrading old lines, we’re hardly building any new ones. “I think we need probably about $20 [million] or $30 million a year on new capacity, new line miles and new delivery capacity. We’re spending close to zero on that right now.”
“If you just think about a line crossing two or three dozen different utility territories, they have a way to recover their costs on their local system, but they kind of throw up their hands when there’s something that benefits three dozen utilities, and who’s supposed to pay, how much, and how are we going to decide?” Gramlich said.
Permitting is a major holdup as well. All new energy projects must undergo a series of impact studies to evaluate what new transmission equipment is required, how much it will cost and who will pay. But the list of projects stuck in this process is massive. The total amount of electricity generation in the queues, almost all of which is renewable, exceeds the total generating capacity on the grid today.
The Inflation Reduction Act has the potential to cut emissions by about 1 billion tons by 2030, according to Princeton’s REPEAT project. But by this same analysis, if transmission infrastructure buildout doesn’t more than double its historical growth rate of 1% per year, more than 80% of these reductions could be lost.
An ‘in-between period’
Efforts are underway to expedite the energy infrastructure buildout. Most notably, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a permitting reform bill in May after similar measures failed last year. President Joe Biden has thrown his support behind the bill, which would speed up permitting for all types of energy projects, including fossil fuel infrastructure. The politics will be tricky to navigate, though, as many Democrats view the bill as overly friendly to fossil fuel interests.
But even if the pace of permitting accelerates and we start spending big on transmission soon, it will still take years to build the infrastructure that’s needed.
“There’s going to be an in-between period where the need is very high, but the transmission can’t be built during the time period where the need happens, and distributed energy resources are going to play a very active role in managing that process, because no other resources will be available,” Shumavon explained.
That means that resources such as residential solar and battery systems could help stabilize the grid as customers generate their own power and sell excess electricity back to the grid. Automakers are also increasingly equipping their EVs with bidirectional charging capabilities, which allow customers to use their giant EV battery packs to power their homes or provide electricity back to the grid, just like a regular home battery system. Tesla doesn’t currently offer this functionality, but has indicated that it will in the coming years, while other models such as the Ford F-150 Lightning and Nissan Leaf already do.
Ford’s all electric F-150 Lightning offers bidirectional charging, allowing customers to use the truck’s EV battery to power their home.
Ford Motor Company
There will also likely be greater emphasis on energy efficiency and energy timing use. PG&E, for example, is thinking about how to optimize charging times for large electric vehicle fleets.
“One thing that we’re trying to do is to work with some of these companies that are putting in substantial loads to provide flexible load constraints where we can say you can only charge 50 EVs at 7 p.m., but at 2 a.m. you can charge all 100,” Krefta said.
Krefta hopes constraints on charging times are temporary, though, and said that moving forward, PG&E is looking to incentivize consumers through dynamic pricing, in which electricity prices are higher during times of peak demand and lower at off-peak hours. And the utility is working with automakers to figure out how electric vehicles can provide maximum benefit to the grid.
“What kinds of things do you need to do in your garage to enable your vehicle to power your home? How can you leverage your vehicle to charge whenever there’s renewables on the grid and they’re clean and low cost and then discharge back to the grid during the evening hours?” Krefta said it’s questions like these that will help create the green grid of the future.
Palantir co-founder and CEO Alex Karp attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Oct. 18, 2023.
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
With Palantir’s stock plummeting more than 11% this week despite a better-than-expected earnings report, CEO Alex Karp took aim at investors betting against the software company.
Karp, who co-founded Palantir in 2003, went after short sellers in two separate interviews on CNBC this week. After “Big Short” investor Michael Burry revealed bets against Palantir and Nvidia, Karp on Tuesday accused short sellers of “market manipulation.”
He repeated that message on Friday in an interview with CNBC’s Sara Eisen, again knocking Burry’s wager against the stock.
“To get out of his position, he had to screw the whole economy by besmirching the best financials ever … that are helping the average person as investors [and] on the battlefield,” Karp said.
Even with Palantir’s slide this week, the stock is up 135% in 2025 and has multiplied 25-fold in the past three years, an extended rally that’s lifted the company’s market cap to over $420 billion. While revenue and profit are growing rapidly, the multiples have shot up much faster, and the stock now trades for about 220 times forward earnings, a ratio that rivals Tesla’s.
Nvidia and Meta, by contrast, have forward price-to-earnings ratios of about 33 and 22, respectively.
In August, Citron Research’s Andrew Left, a noted short seller, called Palantir “detached from fundamentals and analysis” and said shares should be priced at $40. It closed on Friday at $177.93 after late-day gains pushed the stock into the green.
Palantir, which builds analytics tools for large companies and government agencies, reported earnings and revenue on Monday that topped analysts’ estimates and issued a forecast that was also ahead of Wall Street projections.
But the stock fell about 8% after the report and then slid almost 7% on Thursday. Karp told Eisen that the recent boom in Palantir’s share price isn’t just for Wall Street.
“We’re delivering venture results for retail investors,” he said.
While Palantir has in the past faced a fairly heft dose of short interest, there are currently relatively few investors placing big bets against it. The short interest ratio, or the percentage of outstanding shares being sold short, peaked at over 9% in September and is now at a little over 2%, which is about as low as its been since the company went public in 2020.
Still, calling out the doubters is a common occurrence for Karp, who has previously said on CNBC that people should “exit” if they “don’t like the price.”
In May, after the stock plummeted following earnings, Karp said ,”You don’t have to buy our shares.”
“We’re happy,” he said. “We’re going to partner with the world’s best people and we’re going to dominate. You can be along for the ride or you don’t have to be.”
The company has also faced backlash over its work with government agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Karp has admitted that his strong pro-Israel stance led some people to leave the company.
The boisterous CEO has been particularly vocal this week. On Monday’s earnings call, he questioned how happy the people are who didn’t invest in the company, and told them to “get some popcorn.”
And on CNBC he aimed much of his ire at Burry after the investor revealed his short positions in Palantir and Nvidia.
“The two companies he’s shorting are the ones making all the money, which is super weird,” Karp told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Tuesday. “The idea that chips and ontology is what you want to short is bats— crazy.”
In this Club Check-in, CNBC’s Paulina Likos and Zev Fima break down big tech’s massive artificial intelligence spending spree — debating whether these billion-dollar bets will drive long-term cost savings or weigh on near-term returns.
Mega-cap tech companies are shelling out billions of dollars to build out AI infrastructure. The big question we’re asking is whether all this heavy spending will eventually pay off in efficiency or if Wall Street is right to worry about how much they’re burning through in the short term.
Concerns about AI-stock valuations seeped into the market this week and slammed stocks.
Many major tech companies —including the three biggest clouds, Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet‘s Google — raised capital expenditure guidance this earnings season, sparking both investor optimism and concern.
Zev Fima, portfolio analyst for the Club, argued the spending is justified: “Too much focus on the short-term is what leads to falling behind in the long term.” CNBC reporter Paulina Likos pushed back, noting that “investors haven’t seen efficiency gains show up in returns yet.”
Watch the video above to see where the debate played out on whether AI investments are real productivity drivers or just expensive promises until proven otherwise.
(See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust, the portfolio used by the CNBC Investing Club.)
As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade.
THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY, TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER. NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Affirm CEO Max Levchin said Friday that while the buy now, pay later firm isn’t seeing credit stress among federally employed borrowers due to the government shutdown, there are signs of a change in shopping habits.
“We are seeing a very subtle loss of interest in shopping just for that group, and a couple of basis points,” Levchin told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.”
At least 670,000 federal employees have been furloughed in the shutdown, and about 730,000 are working without pay, the Bipartisan Policy Center said this week.
Levchin said he’s closely watching employment data for signs of major disruptions, but the company is “capable” of adjusting credit standards when needed.
“Right now, things are just fine,” he said. “We’re not seeing any major disturbances at all.”
The federal funding lapse, which began Oct. 1, is the longest in U.S. history and has halted work across agencies with an impact beyond those who are government employees. The SNAP food benefit program, which serves 42 million Americans, has also been cut off.
Read more CNBC tech news
The comments from Levchin followed a fiscal first-quarter earnings report that blew past Wall Street’s estimates. Affirm posted earnings of 23 cents per share on $933 million in revenue. Analysts polled by LSEG expected earnings of 11 cents per share on $883 million in sales.
Revenues climbed 34% from a year ago, while gross merchandise volumes jumped 42% to $10.8 billion from $7.6 billion a year ago. That surpassed Wall Street’s $10.38 billion estimate.
The fintech company, which went public in 2021, also lifted its full-year outlook, saying it now expects gross merchandise volume to hit $47.5 billion, versus prior guidance of $46 billion.
Affirm also said it renewed its partnership with Amazon through 2031. The company has also inked deals with the likes of Shopify and Apple in a competitive e-commerce landscape.
Levchin said categories such as ticketing and travel have seen an uptick in interest, and consumer shopping remains strong. Active consumers grew to 24.1 million from 19.5 million a year ago.
“We’re every single day out there preaching the gospel of buy now, pay later being the better way to buy, and consumers are obviously responding,” he said.